COMPARE · Reviewed August 3, 2026
BCO vs CXW
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. BCO scored 67.5, CXW scored 50.6 — BCO leads.
Compare another set
BCO
The Brink's Company
67.5
$117.28 · $4.8B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
16.9
BCO leads
CXW
CoreCivic, Inc.
50.6
$30.20 · $3.0B
fundamentals as of
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
BCO
stronger →← stronger
CXW
68
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
47
61
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
76
74
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
36
BCO is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
BCO
CXW
$296mC
FCF
$26mC-
+7.3%B
Rev
+12.7%B+
—
D/E
1.02C+
27.4xB
P/E
24.2xB+
1.16B+
PEG
1.06B+
Winner per row is the stronger grade in our model; a tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
BCO
CXW
13% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
227% above
~6%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~45%/yr
-1%
1-yr DCF upside
-77%
+15%
5-yr DCF upside
-69%
+44%
10-yr DCF upside
-53%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
BCO
No notable signals flagged.
CXW
Why this score
- Buying back stock
The companies
BCOThe Brink's Company
Why now
Security & Protection Services · market cap $4.8b. 14% off the 52-week high of $136.37.
Moat
ROE 69% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 164% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Net margin 3.3% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
CXWCoreCivic, Inc.
Why now
Security & Protection Services · market cap $3.0b. 8% off the 52-week high of $32.69. Revenue growing +13%, comfortably above the S&P median. 5 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $36.40 (implying +21% upside).
Moat
Moat signals from the quantitative card are modest — profitability and capital efficiency are middle-of-pack. The thesis here depends on softer factors (switching costs, brand, distribution, regulatory protection) not captured by the quality-growth screen.
Risk
Mature compounder — the risk is paying up for quality at a moment when growth is decelerating. Watch for sequential revenue + margin trends; the inflection from "compounder" to "ex-compounder" is hard to spot until the multiple already started compressing.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
Generating verdict… typically 5–10 seconds
Not investment advice. The Bull Rankings publishes a quantitative ranking model and accompanying analysis for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security; nothing is personalized to your circumstances, risk tolerance, or tax situation. Investing carries the risk of loss — invest at your own risk and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before acting on anything you read here. See terms and methodology for full disclosures.